Theos-Talk Archives (August 2002 Message tt00189)

brianmuehlbach wrote:
> In S D I p. 181, HPB gives basic facts about three lines of
> Evolution. She describes them around that page and names them.
> 
> 1. Spiritual (or MONADIC).
> 2. Intellectual ( or Manasic), and
> 3. Physical. (or material).

Can you tell me if this 5-point summary of what you have been saying is
accurate:

1) Blavatsky makes a number of claims which, on the surface,
contradicts current scientific knowledge.

2) Blavatsky makes a number of claims which are rejected by most
current theosophists.

3) Many of Blavatsky's followers compounded her errors with statements
that went in a completely different direction than current scientific
knowledge.

4) Science, while it does not have the truth, continues to approach the
truth more and more closely as time goes on. Therefore, if Blavatsky was
correct, one would expect science to converge on her statements rather
than diverge from them. 

5) Therefore, it would appear that taking Blavatsky's (and certainly
the later theosophical writers) word as the literal truth is wrong,
possibly dangerously so.

If it is, then I daresay that most of us are in agreement with you.
However, it appears that you are also trying to make a 6th point:

6) Because there are places where Blavatsky, and the later theosophists
are completely wrong, that invalidates Theosophy.

This is a point where you will find that most of us disagree with you.
Blavatsky herself said that she knew that she got things wrong; the
Mahatmas said that they got things wrong, as well. 

The key, in my own opinion, is, that if compares theosophy to an apple,
whether the primary literature is the peel or the core. If one considers
it the peel, that anything outside the primary literature is worthless,
or, as some think, that we cannot look beyond the primary literature
until we have 100% mastery over the primary literature, then you may
very well be right (as I have assumed) that Theosophy is a waste of
time. But if one considers the primary literature to be the CORE, then
the outlook changes radically. Because there is much good knowledge to
be had from the primary literature, EVEN IF IT INVOLVES PROVING IT TO BE
WRONG. The primary literature is just a starting point, outlining a few
basic assumptions, and seeing where those assumptions lead. 

Bart Lidofsky